bustardblog

John Deutch : Robert Gates

John Deutch's op-ed in today's New York Times, while possibly correct in its conclusions, is extraordinarily depressing to those of us of a certain age.

His basic point is that we need Robert Gates to run the Pentagon - because he is experienced and competent. Gates' involvement in Iran/Contra is to be ignored. His participation in propping up Saddam during the prior Bush administration must be forgotten.  The Bush/Rumsfeld debacle is so enormous and so catastrophic that we must beg leaders to return who were instrumental in pushing failed, amoral, but slightly less disastrous policies - a dozen years ago.

Remember when Bill Clinton appointed a Republican, former Senator William Cohen as our Secretary of Defense?  Clinton also appointed Bill Perry to the post. As General Shalikashvili* said when Perry retired: "Surely, Bill Perry has been the GI's secretary of defense." Perry was proudest of "his very strong bond with our men and women in uniform." (Sound like Rummy to you? * And yes, this is the same General who was fired for being honest about required troop levels in Iraq)

Today, Deutch noted that  James Schlesinger "moved from the intelligence directorship to the Pentagon in the 1970s, and he is remembered for his fierce independence from the White House."

The idea that a cabinet level appointee should be independent from the President, should do anything other than slavishly obey the instructions from the President's Politcal Potemkin [aka: Karl Rove] is unheard of in this administration. Our round table is set for  calculating courtiers, not a cabinet of independent thinkers.

Remember people like Elliot Richardson, and William Ruckleshaus? (Their refusal to fire Archibald Cox was finally reversed by none other than Robert Bork)  Janet Reno may have been imperfect - but she was independent. Whatever you think of a Ramsey Clark -visionary or madman -  his independence is undeniable. If you can, look at the list of Attorneys General in our country - it's quite an impressive group of people.

Not so for Abu Gonzalez - he tries to game the law in order to find ways to legitimize the illegal activities of the Bush Team.

It's just another example of Bush trashing our system of government, of his destroying traditions and institutions that made the U.S. what it should be.

More Lies.

This administration so often confuses words with deeds that you have to conclude they do not want to govern, only to control.  The Man in the Street does not matter; it's the unpopular President clearing brush on his ersatz ranch that we must care about.  Their goal, their only goal, is to remain in power. They have no realistic concern nor interest in the government's impact on the world.

While commenting on our unpopular President's poll numbers, Rich Lowry of The Corner recently posted his advice on how the Republicans can 'change' things in order to maintain their dominance in Washington. (H/T Atrios) Not one of his recommendations was substantive. None. All were either carefully calculated spin, or outright deception. We've entered the land of Oz - but like the Tin Man, the Lion, and the Scarecrow - the 'W'izard' in the Emerald City of D.C. has neither heart, nor courage, nor brains. Unlike those three strivers, Bush is  unaware of what he lacks.

And there's no Glenda the Good Witch ready to help us out.

Instead, the Bushies continue to lie about the real dangers America faces in a world made ever more hostile by their unilateral belligerence. Iran's nuclear capacity is only the latest example.

Today, Stephen Rademaker, the "U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation.. told reporters that "using those 50,000 centrifuges they could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 16 days.

But "those" 50,000 centrifuges do not exist.  What supposedly exists is a facility that could, potentially, hold that many centrifuges.

He goes on to day that "we calculate that a 3,000-machine cascade could produce enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon within 271 days." Two hundred and seventy-one days is a lot better than sixteen; but still - it's not a long time.

But Iran is not only lacking the 50,000 centrifuges, it does not even have 3,000: what it brags about having is 164 centrifuges.

These Iraq-style lies do not enhance our security. There is no government, no country on Earth whose trust in the U.S. has not diminished since 2001. Having seen us unilaterally invade one member of the "axis of evil," what else can we expect from the other two members of the group than their accelerating their nuclear weapons  programs? Bush, Cheney and Rove believe that scare tactics keep their base energized and their positions of power secure.

Unfortunately, they make the United States less secure.

Why can't the U.S. quit George Bush?

Why Did He Do It?

Thanks to Richard, a commenter at Atrios, I got a chance to read April's Vanity Fair article on Jack Abramoff. Reading of an encounter with Bush, who observed how Abramoff  was really getting "buff" and asking how much weight the lobbyist could "bench press," I was again reminded of my utter inability to understand our President, and why he is our President.

My question about understanding him is not related to agreeing with him. I hated the Reagan Presidency. I really hated Nixon's. But I knew who they were. I am also not  asking how our country could have voted for W.: merely why he wanted us to.

He has no interest in government. Watching the recent video of his being warned of Katrina just reinforces that judgment. He asked no questions. As his first Treasury Secretary said of his running a cabinet meeting; the president was "like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people. There is no discernible connection," forcing top officials to act on little more than hunches about what the president might think."

Former Reagan aid, Bruce Bartlett, today described the administration as lacking "anybody who does any serious policy analysis" on policy issues.

When interviewing a prospective Supreme Court nominee, Bush "focused heavily on the upbringing of the two men,.. He wanted to know about his personal life and where he came from."

Clearly, this is not a Clinton, nor a Gore, who is actually interested in policy. Nor does he believe in the efficacy of either planning or strategy.

There was no plan for what we wanted to have happen in Iraq after Saddam fell. There is also no strategy as to what happens after we killed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty during W's visit in Delhi. Questioning the success of the treaty might be valid. Destroying it without proposing an alternative is inexcusable.

Bush has no interest in policy, nor in the role of the government. So why does he want the job?

Greed is always a possibility. It is a phenomenally corrupt administration. I have tended to dismiss that; thinking that the Bush's must have enough money.  But then I read of Barbara Bush's paid speaking gig at the annual convention of party furniture rental companies instead of appearing at Coretta Scott King's funeral, and I wonder about my innocence.

Is the greed explanation the only way to understand W's motivation to be president? Or does it have more to do with a former cheerleader asking the most important lobbyists in town and one of his biggest fundraisers about being buffed? Is it really about W being a member of the grown-up's club? His father might finally respect him?

To me one of the saddest, most telling moments of this tragedy of a presidency occurred in the White House on a Sunday afternoon at about 5:30.  W is sitting in a room by himself, watching football on TV. When he faints and falls to the floor, bruising his face after eating a pretzel, no one cares. The next day he said that he must have been unconscious for only a very short amount of time, because the dogs hadn't moved. Can you imagine falling onto the floor and your dogs don't move? So even the dogs didn't care. And when told this fanciful tale, the reporters didn't really question it.  Even the Press didn't care.

Poor one.

Restoring Respect for America

When Bush was first elected, I was one of many who were concerned by his lack of experience in things international.  It's five years later, and we can be relieved by his travel experience.  Just think of some of the places he has been:

(Pls Double Click to enlarge)

Just last week he was in Pakistan,

and before that in Delhi.

He's been to Africa.
This photo was shot while he was in Nigeria.

And this one while he visited Cape Town.

In May of 2002, he went to Berlin.
In fact he's been to Europe several times.

May of 2004 found him in Italy.

He was briefly in Belfast in 2003.

Just over a year ago, he was in Brussells.

In our own hemisphere, who can forget his trip to
Mar del Plata, that beautiful  resort in Argentina?

While he was in Santiago de Chile, the citizenry got some excercise.

In Panama, young people like to cover their faces too.

Closer to home, he visited Monterrey in  Mexico

And of course, to Ottawa, the capital of our calm and quiet neighbor to the North.

All of the above photos were of local people reacting to Bush's visit to their nation.

You see, at least internationally, he really is a uniter, not a divider.

Liars: 24/7

Our friendly racist reader Rick is on a new course.  He hopes that our liberal eyes remain focused on Five Deferment Dick's shooting a friend in the face.

He knows that the lies that Dick and George tell in their day job are far worse than the  lies about a "hunting accident."

He's hoping that we spend all our time on their extracurricular lies, and ignore the lies they tell us Monday through Friday, 9:00 to 5:00.

What he fails to understand is something that most of the country realizes - a liar doesn't lie according to a schedule. Credibility doesn't punch a time clock. Guys like Cheney and Bush tell lies whenever they think it will help them.

A guy who lies about shooting a friend in the face has no problem lying about Saddan's nuclear arms. Lies about the relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq? A piece of cake.

The more clearly that the American people see Cheney - the better for the left, and, more importantly, for the nation.

Liking Lott a Little

The Bush team's arrogance was on display again in their ousting of Trent Lott from his job as Senate Majority Leader. Reputed boy-genius Rove engineered Lott's replacement by Dr Schiavo-Frist, and it was both a poor decision, and a poorly executed one.  They did gain a very loyal puppy in the Doctor, who, as Wikipedia points out "has not had a single moment of significant dissent from the White House party line." But as is standard operating procedure for this administration, they traded competence for absolute loyalty and corruption. Lott's goals have generally been abhorent, but his skills are impressive, and he's having some fun these days.

1. When Frist/Hastert attempt to make headlines demanding a bicameral investigation into what they decry as the virtually treasonous leak concering U.S. prisons in Eastern Europe,  Trent is right there to send them to a back page. He steals the limelight by suggesting that the leak came from a Republican Senator. He predicted that the leak investigation will turn into an ethics investigation into a Republican Senator or Staffer.

2. Trent has made his opinion that Rove should go quite explicit.

3. He also thinks that Rumsfeld has had his day. "I am not a fan of Sefcretary Rumsfeld....I would like to see a change in the slot in the next year or so." (WaPo)

4. The Senator spoke out on Miers "There are a lot of people - men, women and minorities - that are more qualified in my opinion than she is" ( MSNBC) After she withdrew her name, he sang "Happy Days are here again" to Dana Millbank of the WaPo.

5. In his book, "Herding Cats: A Life in Politics" he wrote that "I consider Frist's power grab a personal betrayal"

If Rover was half as smart as we think that he is, he would have recognized that if you are going to tangle with the head lion of the pack, you'd better be able to finish him off.  Leaving him winded, but strutting about the field, is not the act of a boy genius.

(P.S. It would have been inconceivable to me to imagine that if Trent Lott was having a good day, I probably was too.)